Chic Fashions (West Wales) Ltd v Jones [1967] EWCA Civ 4

Police officers executing a search warrant for specific stolen goods seized other items they reasonably believed were stolen, though not mentioned in the warrant. The Court of Appeal held that police may lawfully seize goods they reasonably believe to be stolen when lawfully on premises, even if not specified in the warrant.

Facts

In 1965-1966, thieves stole ladies’ clothes worth approximately £30,000 from various shops and factories. Police received information that clothes of these makes were being sold at Chic Fashions shops at below trade prices. On 30th March 1966, police obtained search warrants specifically authorising search for goods stolen from Ian Peters Ltd. On 31st March 1966, officers searched the Llanelly branch of Chic Fashions but found no Ian Peters goods. However, they found 65 items of other makes (Mornessa, Mansfield, Blanes) with labels removed and priced below trade prices, which they believed on reasonable grounds to be stolen.

The managing director, Mr Raeburn, explained the goods were ‘cabbage’ – surplus cloth made up by sub-contractors. The police accepted this explanation and returned the goods on 2nd April 1966. The company sued the Chief Constable for damages.

Issues

The key legal issue was whether police officers executing a search warrant are entitled to seize goods not mentioned in the warrant but which they believe on reasonable grounds to have been stolen and to constitute material evidence on a criminal charge.

Agreed Facts

The parties agreed that: (i) none of the 65 items was within the warrant’s description; (ii) none was actually stolen; (iii) none was used as prosecution evidence; (iv) all were lawfully acquired by the plaintiffs; (v) police officers believed on reasonable grounds the items were stolen goods.

Judgment

Lord Denning MR

The Master of the Rolls reviewed the historical development of search warrant law, noting the tension between protection of private property and public interest in crime detection. He traced the gradual extension of police powers from Price v. Messenger (1800) through Crozier v. Cundey (1827) to Dillon v. O’Brien (1887).

“In my opinion, when a constable enters a house by virtue of a search warrant for stolen goods, he may seize not only the goods which he reasonably believes to be covered by the warrant, but also any other goods which he believes on reasonable grounds to have been stolen and to be material evidence on a charge of stealing or receiving, against the person in possession of them or anyone associated with him.”

Lord Denning emphasised that the lawfulness of conduct must be judged at the time, not by subsequent events, and declared the doctrine of trespass ab initio from the Six Carpenters’ case obsolete.

Lord Justice Diplock

Diplock LJ stressed that the common law is not static but adapts to contemporary society. He drew an analogy with powers of arrest:

“I decline to accept that a police officer who is unquestionably justified at common law in arresting a person whom he has reasonable grounds to believe is guilty of receiving stolen goods, is not likewise justified in the less draconian act of seizing what he, on reasonable grounds, believes to be the stolen goods in that person’s possession.”

Lord Justice Salmon

Salmon LJ emphasised the evolution of common law values:

“If the man’s person is not sacrosanct in the eyes of the law, how can the goods which he is reasonably suspected of having stolen or received be sacrosanct? Only if the law regards property as more important than liberty. And I do not accept that it does so.”

He expressly limited his judgment to cases where police have reasonable grounds to believe the person in possession is criminally implicated.

Implications

This case significantly extended police powers of seizure at common law. It established that police officers lawfully on premises may seize goods they reasonably believe to be stolen, even without specific warrant authority, provided they believe the person in possession is criminally implicated. The decision reflects a modern balancing of individual property rights against the public interest in crime detection, marking a shift from historical emphasis on property rights towards prioritising effective law enforcement while maintaining safeguards of reasonableness.

Verdict: Appeal allowed. Judgment entered for the defendant (Chief Constable) with costs. The police officers were justified in seizing the goods as they had reasonable grounds for believing them to be stolen and material evidence on a criminal charge.

Source: Chic Fashions (West Wales) Ltd v Jones [1967] EWCA Civ 4